Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: There are some areas of species importance and few KBAs. But there is no information on IFL. Besides, the project focus area is not clear in the proposal.
Evidence B:The primary significance are the coastal and marine areas, especially for fisheries.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Some high level carbon areas in the Mozambique land coast. But the project focus area is not completely clear in the proposal.
Evidence B:Primarily through blue carbon/mangroves, sea grass beds and coral
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Although there is some information in the tabular resources, there is none in the map. And in the project proposal this is not clear enough.
Evidence B:There appear to be strong and active IPLC governance systems
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The project proposal includes general statements, mostly based on copying reports. The project focus communities and area are not completely clear in the proposal.
Evidence B:Primarily for fisheries
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The score in the cumulative developmentt pressures and in the text (table) guided me to conclude the level of the threats.
Evidence B:The recent discovery of hydrocarbon /gas warrants a high threat ranking
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Although there is no clarity on legal framework to protected IPLCs, the proposal states community-based interests and possibilities.
Evidence B:There is a strong history of locally managed marine areas in place, with effective IPLC governance
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Not enough clear, but supposedly so.
Evidence B:There appears to be strong support
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Not enough clear. By the proposal text, one can only suppose there is some level of action and initial success.
Evidence B:There are numerous examples. See https://cordioea.net/locally-managed-marine-areas/
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are other projects in the supposed region. The connections are not clear enough – including because the project proposal is not clear enough.
Evidence B:There are numerous examples - see https://cordioea.net/locally-managed-marine-areas/
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: There are some proposed initiatives in terms of capacity building and communities’ organization.
Evidence B:Very well aligned approach, consistent with existing efforts, with a focus on securing fisheries rights and protecting the fisheries area
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The document is confusing and the activities and results are not convincing.
Evidence B:Clearly articulated and cohesive approach, with an integrated approach to monitoring, capacity, governance
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: There is some interesting elements of capacity building in para-legal terms.
Evidence B:These activities are well aligned with tackling existing threats
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:This set of activities is ambitious but achievable
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Multiple and significant sources cited, including Rare, SGP, USAID and many others
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The total area is > 1,000, 000 ha
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Well justified, although indicators missing
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The justification is clear for long-term sustainability
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: National priorities does not seem clearly stated regarding IPLC role in nature conservation.
Evidence B:Weakly justified, which is unfortunate. Mozambique is updating its NDC.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Strong case for gender mainstreaming, and well articulated.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: There is some interesting elements of capacity building in para-legal terms.
Evidence B:This has the strong potential to be scaled up along the coast.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proposal seem to come from local communities’ organizations.
Evidence B:A partnership is proposed.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: There seems to be a network of grassroots organizations, but the point is related to the lack of clarity on how the proposed activities would face the nature conservation threats.
Evidence B:Very strong history working with major partners.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: See above.
Evidence B:Very strong partnerships in place with a range of partners.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: There seems to be projects managed by the proposing local communities’ organization and the sister organizations part of the network.
Evidence B:They only lack GEF experience.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:They meet all 3 criteria.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Yes, but poor justification